2023-09-20 08:48 UTC
@tyrell_turing@fediscience.org
Ok. I read the paper carefully and actually really like it. It lays out your conceptual framework very clearly, which allows me to precisely pinpoint the holes in your argument.
The fundamental hidden assumption that is simply stated but not justified at all is that algorithmic computation "can be applied to almost any object in the universe."
Of course, we can simulate (approximate) anything, like throwing a ball, but the actual ball throw is not literally computation ...
Replies (1)
-
@yoginho@spore.social 2023-09-20 08:51
@tyrell_turing@fediscience.org The important difference is between "making a computational model of the ball throw" vs the claim that the ball throw *is* computation, which it isn't, because (a) it has no symbolic content (other than that imputed on it by your model), and (b) it is not necessarily Turing-computable (as you claim without justification; but maybe you realize that classical mechanics, standardly used to describe the ball throw, is not computable because the real numbers are not) ...